Ex Parte Laible

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2013

12085809 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KARL-FRIEDRICH LAIBLE
____________

Appeal 2012-000544
Application 12/085,809
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000544
Application 12/085,809

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 14-18, 26, and 27. See App. Br. 3. Claims 1-13
and 19-25 are cancelled, and claims 28-30 are withdrawn. Id. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 14, the sole independent claim, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below.
14. A refrigeration device comprising:
a body having a thermally insulated inner chamber;
a door articulated onto the body; the door having a front
side; the body and the door surrounding the thermally-insulated
inner chamber;
a decorative element having a central cutout section; the
central cutout section having an edge; the decorative element
being superimposed on the door in an adjustable manner; a gap
located between the edge of the central cutout section of the
decorative element and the front side of the door; a profile
received in the gap; the profile adaptable to the width of the
gap.
Rejections
Claims 14, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Fitzpatrick (US 4,948,206, iss. Aug. 14, 1990).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Fitzpatrick and Doan (US 4,807,397, iss. Feb. 28, 1989).

Appeal 2012-000544
Application 12/085,809

3
OPINION
Anticipation by Fitzpatrick
The Examiner finds Fitzpatrick’s decorative trim panel 75,
particularly the inner most part of mounting flange 79, constitutes the edge
as recited in claim 14. See Ans. 4-5 (annotating Figure 2 of Fitzpatrick with
the term “edge” and an arrow pointing to the inner most part of mounting
flange 79).
The Appellant contends “nowhere does Fitzpatrick disclose that
decorative trim panel 75 has an edge, as that term is recited in claim 14.”
App. Br. 5. However, merely because Fitzpatrick does not use the term
“edge” with regard to trim panel 75 does not mean that the trim panel 75
lacks an edge. As such, the Appellant’s contention is not persuasive.
Further, the Appellant contends “the part of trim panel 75 closest to
the door panel is a mounting flange 79 which is not indicative of the claimed
edge.” App. Br. 5; see Reply Br. 3.
In response, the Examiner explains that the term “edge” is the “line
where an object or area begins or ends.” Ans. 7; see also MERRIAM-
WEBSTER UNABRIDGED, (“edge”), http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/edge (last visited, Nov. 7, 2013).1 The Examiner’s
proffered definition of the term “edge” is within the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the underlying Specification. See In re Am.
Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Notably, the

1 The Specification lacks an explicit definition of the term “edge.” In the
absence of an express definition of a claim term in the Specification or a
clear disclaimer of scope, the claim term is interpreted as broadly as the
ordinary usage of the term by one of ordinary skill in the art would permit.
In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Appeal 2012-000544
Application 12/085,809

4
Appellant does not contend that the Examiner’s proffered definition is not
included within the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the
Specification.
The Appellant contends, “the present [S]pecification provides the
background to one of ordinary skill in the art regarding the interpretation of
the central cutout section having an edge, and this would not include trim
panel 75 of Fitzgerald.” Reply Br. 3. However, the Appellant does not
point to any portion of the Specification in support of the assertion that
Fitzpatrick’s decorative trim panel 75, particularly, the inner most part of
mounting flange 79, cannot constitute an edge. As such, the Appellant’s
contention is not persuasive.
Next, the Appellant contends, “Fitzpatrick does not disclose a gap
between the edge of the central cutout section of a decorative element and
the front side of a refrigerator door, as recited in claim 14.” App. Br. 5.
The Examiner finds that Fitzpatrick discloses “a gap . . . located
between the edge [79] of the central cutout section of the decorative element
[75] and the front side of the door [11, 40] (Fig. 2).” Ans. 5 (annotating
Figure 2 of Fitzpatrick with the term “gap” and an arrow pointing to a space
between mounting flange 79 and glass pane 42 (reference number not shown
in annotated Figure 2)). In other words, the Examiner finds that Fitzpatrick
discloses the claimed “gap” by pointing to the space in annotated Figure 2
“which is filled by insulating strip 55.” Ans. 7; see also col. 3, l. 11-12.
The Appellant contends that the location of “insulating strip 55 . . . is
not suggestive of a gap between the edge of the central cutout section of a
decorative element and the front side of a refrigerator door as claimed.”
App. Br. 6. Notably, the Appellant does not explain this position.
Appeal 2012-000544
Application 12/085,809

5
We disagree with the Appellant’s position. Figure 2, as annotated by
the Examiner, shows that insulating strip 55 fills a space or a “gap” between
mounting flange 79 and glass pane 42 of glass unit 40, which is the front
side of door 11. See col. 2, ll. 58-61, fig. 2.
For the above reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim
14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 26 and 27, which depend from claim
14, are not argued separately and thus, fall with claim 14.
Obviousness based on Fitzpatrick and Doan
The Appellant asserts “[t]he remaining claims are allowable at least
based on their dependence on claim 14.” App. Br. 5. As such, the Appellant
does not provide further arguments for the rejection of claims 15-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fitzpatrick and Doan. The
Appellant merely relies on the arguments presented for the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 for this ground of rejection.
For the same reasons we have sustained the rejection of claim 14, we
likewise sustain the rejection of claims 15-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fitzpatrick and Doan.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 14-18, 26, and 27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

mp